Not really I once had a Mod ban me from using any RMB because I called
a friend from school a "Poopyhead" because I was trying my hand in jokes.
The mods didn't find it funny and deleted the comment and suspended my RMB privileges nevertheless...
So no, Im not being melodramatic.
But how does banning nazism lead to banning other ideologies?
The slippery slope is imagined.
I dont really have much for to say. I'm fine with what is being proposed, but these attacks on Hunzali are extremely unfair. Extremism is something that is rapidly growing in visibility. You are not wrong if you do not wish to tolerate it.
Rilandse's "argument" that nazis can just use a different term is broke too. things like Strasserism and the like are *branches* of Naziism, and would fall under the ban.
If we ban Nazism anyone could say "Hey, that's unfair, why is Nazism banned but __ isn't?" I don't see how that's imagined, that's what happens when you ban one thing but not another. It's called being selective.
The fact Hunzali wants this is fine, no problem there, it's his opinion. What attacks on Hunzali? Is disagreeing an attack? I don't see how extremism has anything to do with this at the point we're at right now. I know you're aware of this, but nobody here is actually supporting Nazis.
I'm not calling anyone an extremist. I'm saying he's not worthy of ridicule if he wants a famously extremist ideology banned in name.
Again, I am fine with what is happening, it's seems like nazism is de facto banned anyway.
Its similar enough to fall under the umbrella and the fact youre fighting so hard against addind the word naziism into the ban when like you said "we allready ban the core elements" is a bit concerning
Whenever you're following a written document "close enough" can't be applied. Again, the argument is against going against the consitution, not defending Nazism. Also, its a bit concerning you still defend the deaths of millions at the hands of the soviets.
if weve defacto banned it than weve already gone against the rules and no harm comes from simply using the name naziism
"no u" still isnt an argument
This isn't a "no u" moment.
I am just appalled you literally justify and defend mass murder.
Literally a "no u" moment. you deflected and brought up my own beliefs in an attempt to tarnish my argument.
Also, youre misrepresenting my argument YET AGAIN. My argument was, everry single time that we had it, that not nearly as many died as is commonly stated
You've deflected I didn't. I addressed your point and said this wasn't about defending Nazism, but the rules we all are to follow.
Me bringing up your distorted, immoral beliefs is me saying that I find it rather funny that you are concerned with apparently following the rules, when you believe mass killings are ok.
Me: "No, not nearly as many people died, most deaths are misatributed, and it wasnt the genocidal regime that western media says it is"
you: "YOURE SAYING THAT IT WAS GOOD THAT THEY DIED AAARGAHJKRJHGASDJHG"
correcting the number and cause of deaths is not the same as justifying and defending it.